Federal judge rules California officials violated rules of ethics in Coleman v. Brown

This is somewhat surprising (or maybe it’s just me). The CA prison system sent in experts to evaluate mental health care (pretty common). The judge has thrown out the subsequent reports and says that the experts violated ethics laws because they interviewed the inmates (part of a class action lawsuit) without the attorneys present and because the resulting reports were then used to validate the state’s claim that the prison system no longer needed court oversight of its mental health care services.

Does the fact that the reports were used to validate the state’s claim really matter? In Ohio, experts agreed upon by both plaintiffs counsel and the state conducted focus groups, did chart reviews, etc, and then produced reports – all normal. And those reports were then used by both sides to support their separate claims that oversight should or should not continue. Just because the experts produced a report that supported the state’s claim doesn’t invalidate the report. After all, if it’s like Ohio, the experts themselves were agreed upon by both sides to serve as an impartial monitor. It seems like they did their job…

Prisoner Activist

April 8, 2013 | Jenny Jiang | What the Folly?!

California Institute for Men's B-Facility – Cuffed Reception Center Inmates Awaiting Medical Appointments, Often for Several Hours. SOURCE: Coleman v. Brown declaration of Dr. Edward Kaufman for the plaintiffs.

California officials and their consultants violated the rules of ethics when they interviewed mentally ill prisoners without permission and used the information collected to justify state’s request to terminate federal oversight of the state’s mental health system, a federal judge ruled on Friday.

U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton struck down the reports submitted by four state-hired experts – Dr. Joel A. Doskin, Dr. Jacqueline M. Moore, Dr. Charles L. Scott, and Steve J. Martin – after finding that they had improperly “sought out” and interviewed inmates with “serious mental disorders” in all 13 California prisons that they inspected in 2012.

“The court finds that Defendants [state officials] violated their professional duty,”wrote Karlton. “Defendants [California officials] used the information they gleaned from the inmates against the inmates, in support of their motion to terminate and to vacate the injunction.”

Without the experts’ reports…

View original post 206 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: